list mail accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: it 'Executes verified command v-list-mail-accounts,' which tells the agent this is a direct command wrapper. However, it doesn't disclose return format details or pagination behavior, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful implementation detail. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't explain the 'user' parameter's role (which user's mail accounts to list) or mention the format parameter, but the schema and output schema cover most of what an agent needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'in a mail domain' which implies the domain parameter's role, but it doesn't explain the 'user' parameter or the 'format' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (enum json/plain with default json). The description adds minimal semantic value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List accounts in a mail domain.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mail_domains (which lists domains, not accounts) and add_mail_account (which creates accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'in a mail domain' and requiring user/domain parameters, which tells the agent this is for listing accounts within a specific domain. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_mail_domains or get_mail_domain, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.